Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Blurryeyed
Page: <<prev 1 ... 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 ... 3128 next>>
May 3, 2018 19:46:57   #
FiddleMaker wrote:
Hi Phil, I have a D750 (wish I had the D810) and I have the Tamron 24-70 but I have the newer G2 series which I read is far better than its earlier sibling. I like the G2 series because it has image stabilization and at my age I really need it. There are 2 flavors of the Nikon 24-70 - one with VR and one with out VR. Are you getting the VR version ? ~FiddleMaker


The G2 is the same optical formula as the original Tamron, both have excellent image quality there is no noticeable difference in performance except possibly the newer lens may handle flare and fringing a bit better but that has never been an issue for me and I shot with the original Tamron. The Tamron actually out performs the Nikon according to DXOMark.

http://www.dxomark.com/lenses/brand-canon-nikon-tamron-tokina/launched-between-1987-and-2018/mount_type-Canon_EF-Leica_M-Nikon_F_FX/focal-from-24-to-105/aperture_max-from-1.4-to-45/launch_price-from-0-to-13000-usd/lens_use_case-lens_medium-lens_wide/lens_zoom-zoom/sensor_brand-Nikon#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=
Go to
May 3, 2018 19:39:07   #
Kraken wrote:
Value of White house going down.


See how mixed up you are, it was the Clinton's who were renting out rooms in the White House, silly commy canuk.
Go to
May 3, 2018 19:32:03   #
Opusx300 wrote:
Just purchased canon 5d iv. I have no lenses yet and a $1500 budget for lenses. i shoot mostly portrait and landscape.

I am doing full frame on a budget. So I went looking for one lens to add to my recently purchased 5D MK II and 50 f1.8.

With help from members here and a lot of research I ended up buying a Tokina AT-X 24-70mm f/2.8 PRO FX. B&H had it on sale at $619 instead of $950 new. What I gathered was that it is highly rated. Some say better than the first version canon 24-70 F2.8 but not quite as good as the version II. Let me tell you This lens is wicked good. The sharpness is incredible if you do your part While not a problem for me, I had no idea how big a 24-70 F2.8 lens is until I got it in the mail. It dwarfs the canon 24-105 in size and weight
Again this was not a problem for me. Additional this Tokina is built like a tank. Read the reviews online
Just purchased canon 5d iv. I have no lenses yet a... (show quote)


The Tokina is an excellent lens, the Tamron has comparable quality, they both score 32 on DXOMark, the Tokina slightly edges out the Tamron on sharpness on the 5DSR 25mp/24mp, the Canon Mark II is better than either DXO score of 35 with 32mp sharpness. The Canon 24-105L IS has a DXO score of 24 with 18mp sharpness on the 5DSR. Tokina lenses are built like tanks, I have the 16-28 for night skies and it is a beast.
Go to
May 3, 2018 19:23:39   #
Bill Emmett wrote:
Hello, I've been away for 3 weeks or so on a trip to Europe. First off, it is not necessary to buy "new" lenses for your Mark IV at this time. The suggestion for the 24-105 is sound advice for a all round walk-about lens. Also, consider other brands, like Tamron, and Sigma. I personally would look for a used Tamron 24-70mm, and a used Canon 70-200mm f2.8L Mark II. Look for these lenses at Adorama, B&H, and don't forget KEH, they specialize in used equipment, and give a 6 month warranty.

B
Hello, I've been away for 3 weeks or so on a trip... (show quote)


It is a shame but I don't think he is listening, it is the L factor, too many people think that if it is an L it has to be great, reviews on the original 24-105L are pretty underwhelming on sites that actually test the optical quality of the lenses, the MKII hardly fairs any better, I have owned 3 different 24-105L lenses and none of them come close to the quality of the Tamron 24-70... I also have the 70-200 mkII it was a pretty tough choice for me between that lens and the Tamron 70-200 G2, but the build quality of the Canon was the deciding factor for me.
Go to
May 3, 2018 07:03:04   #
pithydoug wrote:
Not sure if you're going to get 2 lenses for that price. With close to a $3,000 body you want in Canon terms, an "L" quality lens. don't go cheap just to get two. The Canon EF 24–105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens about a grand will do both portrait and landscape. While primes have their place, they can be very restrictive if you can't move you feet.

Good luck. FWIW I have 5DIII and the 24-105 and use it 80% of the time. Just enough wide and just enough zoom especially when you are going someplace and no idea of the terrain.
Not sure if you're going to get 2 lenses for that ... (show quote)


L lenses are not the end all of everything, I have owned and still own several and there are better lenses out there for less money. I repurchased a 24-105 to compare against my Tamron 24-70 and there is no comparison, the IQ of the Tamron is far superior.
Go to
May 2, 2018 20:39:30   #
jcboy3 wrote:
I really wonder why you think I should learn more about Roe v Wade.

I do know that you have no idea what I think about the decision.

Personally, I am a fan of the 13th amendment argument; that forcing a women to complete a pregnancy constitutes an unconstitutional instance of involuntary servitude. An argument that would allow a******n at any time during pregnancy; which is definitely more clear cut and unambiguous.


Which would never make it through the court, biology is not servitude. A******n was never legalized by the court, the decision was more of privacy and due process and never specifically addressed a******n.
Go to
May 2, 2018 17:38:38   #
jcboy3 wrote:
FYI, a******n is legal. Anti-a******nists just want to take women's rights away.

She didn't just insult a professional woman, she also insulted Sarah Huckabee Sanders. In fact, she insulted everyone (left or right).

But that is what she was supposed to do. It was a ROAST. Look it up.


Yes, a******n is considered legal in this country, but you really should learn more about Roe v Wade, it was probably not decided as you think.
Go to
May 2, 2018 16:16:41   #
Number 2 is fantastic, number 1 would be awesome except the tuft of green is distracting, number 3 is just too dark for my taste.
Go to
May 2, 2018 16:13:32   #
Texcaster wrote:
"It just doesn't get much better than this." Some people are easily pleased and don't mind tempting fate.


Other people should learn to put their damn cell phones down and pay attention to the car in front of them while driving.... just saying.
Go to
May 2, 2018 16:04:16   #
Opusx300 wrote:
Just purchased canon 5d iv. I have no lenses yet and a $1500 budget for lenses. i shoot mostly portrait and landscape. I am thinking one prime and a medium zoom. Any suggestions as to best lenses and why you think they are best would be appreciated. Thank you.


I would recommend the older version of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and excellent lens that won't break the bank and either the Canon 85mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2 for the portrait lens. There are certainly better lenses out there but I am considering your budget in making this suggestion. I have the Canon 5D Mark IV and the Tamron, it is a good combination, the new G2 is the same optical formula so you will not be missing much when saving that $300 to $400 to put to your second lens. The Sigma 24-105 Art might also be a consideration but I think that the Tamron is actually a better lens and has a full extra stop as well as image stabilization.

I really recommend that you take the time to read some reviews on these lenses, they are great performers and they will fit well within your budget.

http://www.adorama.com/tm2470eos.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIx7Sv9unn2gIVCIFpCh17kAT0EAYYBSABEgKDo_D_BwE

http://www.adorama.com/ca1002afu.html

http://www.adorama.com/ca8518afu.html
Go to
May 2, 2018 15:54:07   #
Hey I was out shooting this morning.....

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-527224-1.html#8954731
Go to
May 2, 2018 15:51:33   #
Hilarious.
Go to
May 2, 2018 15:40:04   #
Awesome!
Go to
May 2, 2018 15:36:43   #
Thanks for looking Al.
Go to
May 2, 2018 15:30:02   #
Here are a few more shot with the Mark IV and a 100-400 with the 1.4X extender... Admittedly these were probably from a bit further away, in fact the one of the landing was from more than a football field away.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 ... 3128 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.